Who Is God?

I’m starting this ridiculously presumptuous topic with the assumption that we live in a consciousness-driven digital reality. (For the reasons that I think this is the ONLY compelling theory of reality, please see the evidence, or my book, “The Universe – Solved!”) As such, we can draw from the possibilities proposed by various simulation theorists, such as Tom Campbell, Nick Bostrom, Andrei Linde, the Wachowskis, and others. In all cases, our apparent self, what Morpheus called “residual self image” is simply, in effect, an avatar. Our real free-will-wielding consciousness is in the mind of the “sim player”, wherever it may be.

god1-100 god2-100 god3-100

Some possibilities…

  1. We live in a post-human simulation written by humans of the future. This is Nick Bostrom’s “Simulation Argument.” “God” is thus, effectively, a future human, maybe some sniveling teen hacker working at the 2050 equivalent of Blizzard Entertainment. We are contemporaries of the hacker.
  1. We live in a simulation created by an AI, a la “The Matrix.” God is the Architect of the Matrix; we may be slaves or we may just enjoy playing the simulation that the AI created. We may be on earth or somewhere entirely different.
  1. We live in a simulation created by an alien. God is the alien; again, we may be slaves or we may just enjoy playing the simulation that ET has created.
  1. Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, the developer of the “eternal chaotic inflation theory” of the multiverse, once said “On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker.” That would make God a physicist – a future human one, or one from another planet.
  1. We live in a digital system, which continuously evolves to a higher level due to a fundamental law of continuous improvement. Physicist Tom Campbell has done the most to develop this theory, which holds that each of our consciousnesses are “individuated” parts of the whole system, interacting with another component of the system, the reality simulation in which we “live.” God is then a dispassionate digital information system, all that there is, the creator of our reality and of us. We are effectively a part of God.

The kingdom of God is within you” – Jesus

“He who knows his own self, knows God” – Mohammed

“There is one Supreme Ruler, the inmost Self of all beings, who makes His one form manifold. Eternal happiness belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves – not to others” – from the Vedas, original Indian holy text

“The first peace, which is most important, is that which comes within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its Powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us.” – Native American

There are a couple major challenges with possibilities 1 through 4. First of all is the problem of motivation. Would a significantly advanced civilization really be interested in playing out a seemingly mundane existence in a pre-post-human epoch on an ordinary planet? Would we want to live out the entire life of an Australopithecus four million years ago, given the opportunity in a simulation? Of course, this argument anthropomorphizes our true self, which may not even be of human form, like its avatar. In the System model of God, however, motivation is simple; it is part of the fundamental process of continuous improvement. We experience the simulation, or “Reality Learning Lab”, as Campbell calls it, in order to learn and evolve.

The bigger challenge is how to explain these anomalies:

  • Near Death Experiences, many of which have common themes; tunnels toward a white light, interaction with deceased (only!) relatives, life reviews, peace and quiet in an unearthly environment, a perception of a point of no return, and fundamental and lasting change in the experiencer’s attitude about life and death.
  • Past Life Experiences, as recounted by patients of hypnotherapists. Roots of reincarnation beliefs exist in every religion throughout the globe. It is fundamental in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many Native American nations and African tribes, as well as some of the more esoteric (some might say “spiritually pure”) sects of Islam (Druze, Ghulat, Sufism), Judaism (Kabbalah and Hasidic), and even Christianity (Cathars, Gnostics).
  • In-between Life Experiences, as recounted by patients of hypnotherapists, as well as historical prophet figures, and modern spiritualists, such as Edgar Cayce, have common themes, such as encountering spirit guides who help design the next life.
  • Mystical experiences have been reported in many cultures throughout history, from Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, and Buddha to Protestant leader Jacob Boehme to modern day astronaut Rusty Schweickart. Common experiences include the expansion of consciousness beyond the body and ego, timelessness, the perception of being part of a unified whole, a oneness with a “cosmic consciousness”, and a deep understanding of the universe.

Only possibility 5, the “System” concept, can incorporate all of these anomalies. In that model, we are part of the whole, as experienced. We do reincarnate, as experienced. NDEs are simply the experience of our consciousness detaching from the Reality Learning Lab (RLL), and interacting with non-RLL entities.

The problem with the word “God” is the imagery and assumptions that it conjures up; old man with a flowing beard in the clouds. With the variety of simulation models, “God” could also be an incredibly advanced piece of software, or an incredibly advance alien (“light being”?), or a human in a quasi-futuristic grey suit. The word “System”, while probably much more accurate, is equally problematic in the assumptions that it generates. Still, I prefer that, or “All that there is” (ATTI?).

The System model clearly wins, in terms of its explanatory power. Which makes God a very different entity than most of us are used to thinking about.

But I bet the Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed would all love this theory!

14 Responses to Who Is God?

  1. Pingback: Which came first, the digital chicken, or the digital philosophy egg? | Musings on the Nature of Reality

  2. Pingback: Macroscopic Coherence Explained | Musings on the Nature of Reality

  3. Pingback: Is Cosmology Heading for a Date with a Creator? | Musings on the Nature of Reality

  4. eildon11 says:

    Great Blog Jim. I kinda like the idea of a ‘Light Being’. And God said, “Let there be light and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). Sure, the sun, moon and stars were not made until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-16), so what was the nature of the ‘Light’ mentioned in line 3?!

    From “Bot”-tee-licious.

  5. Daghda says:

    I enjoyed this blog however I had a problem with “We do reincarnate, as experienced. NDEs are simply the experience of our consciousness detaching from the Reality Learning Lab (RLL), and interacting with non-RLL entities.”

    One of the logical derivations of MBT theory (Tom Campbell) is that Consciousness is fundamental, it is the media of reality and is best modelled as a large complex information system capable of computing virtual realities. After six reads and applying the theory for several years it becomes clear that reality is subjective, a matter of perspective and that all beings are Individuated Units Of Consciousness and no matter what reality they are focused they are expereincing an enclosed system, a virtual construct with a rule set specific to that construct…

    The primary purpose of all Individuated Units of Consciousness is to reduce entropy (increase the Quality Of Consciousness) at the individuated/individual level which in turn reduces the entropy at a system wide level. In the Big Picture there are no non Reality Learning Lab entities.

    Daghda

    • jim says:

      Thank you very much for your comment, Daghda. In MBT Theory, isn’t NPMR the domain of non Reality Learning Lab entities?

  6. brother says:

    the matrix host can be considered as the god, and all of other beings are his servants ; and he is alone, because the other beings take their existence from him and have not an independent being, he can see us every where, however we never can see him behind the matrix

  7. adinkra says:

    I don’t see a good reason to assume we’re “part of God” because we’re His simulation. There needs to be a reason to assume the simulation we’re in is unlike the simulations we create.

    Until I see correlation otherwise, I’m sticking with God is a hacker, outside of the simulation. In terms of pattern-awareness, this has self sameness: that’s what we observe Re our own simulations, i.e. we are outside of our simulations, not “part of them”.

  8. TRex4You says:

    You might want to read this page. It says that human civilization became advanced long ago. Humans are immortal and have virtual reality universes for their entertainment. God can have avatars and appear as an ordinary human to us. It names some avatars and explains why Jesus is called Son of God.

    http://www.naturalmoney.org/godisawoman.html

    • Lars Olson says:

      Jesus knew nothing about programming nor explained anything about programming. If the bible had information in it about quantum mechanics or computers Jesus would indeed be a savior of some kind. Instead he was just a pathetic hippy with delusions that knew nothing about science.

      If we are currently inside a simulation, it’s a pretty poor simulation since they haven’t given us any details on how we can modify the simulation to our liking. Only an evil programmer would create a simulation that treats the characters in it like pawns of a chess game or mice in a lab. We are just an evolution experiment in a lab to them and not sentient beings.. it’s like the way humans treat jews in concentration camps.. if we are in a simulation, it’s a nazi simulation and we are stuck in this concentration camp known as “8-5 job” on earth. University is high pressure and unpleasant, our daily jobs are unpleasant, we have cancer – why can’t these God’s cure or help us cure cancer instead of letting us suffer like jews in concentration camps? If they are so intelligent to create a simulation why don’t they make it enjoyable for the characters that have to live in the simulation?

      You’ve heard of Anti-theism as opposed to atheism… An antitheist opposes living in a world where there was a god, even if it was proven that god existed. I am an anti – theist when it comes to living in a cruel concentration camp like simulation (which is what earth is like… boring 8-5 jobs and death without any indication of paradise after death). If there is in fact paradise after death in this simulation, why don’t they at least prove it to us so we can live happier lives knowing this is the case at the end? Maybe they are just stupid – but if they were stupid, they wouldn’t have been smart enough to create the simulation in the first place. Hence the catch 22 paradox.

  9. Laura Jennings says:

    Someone once said of such theories (I’m paraphrasing) – it’s like you add some excrement to a meal created by a master chef & serve it on a platter – it’s difficult to discriminate what you are tasting.

    No doubting Nick Bostrom’s intelligence but I think he’s seen the Matrix too many times.
    An alternative solution to his propositions is that rather than existing in a simulation we will merge with AI to form a new species that has the capability to explore the universe &/or perhaps live in simulations if they chose to. It is hoped such technology will be available by 2060.

    One interesting observation for which I haven’t seen an answer to: if we are living in a simulation why is it that only 0.0001% of population earn top 1% of income – surely we aren’t born to be sadists or does our God-like computer hacker have biased dice?

    • Lars Olson says:

      God might be a libertarian that lets the free market do whatever it wants.. hence this simulation has created a stupid idiotic system known as evolution (bottom up) where dinosaurs eat other dinosaurs instead of the dinosaurs getting along… maybe this libertarian free market programmer wants the simulation to figure out how to heal itself Bottom Up instead of top down design…

      Lisp programmers for example believe in bottom up evolution type code, whereas top down programmers believe in a more centralized “perfect program” that is formally proven first. It certainly is not a perfect universe we live in at all, so obviously it’s bottom up stupid design (or let the system design itself using trial and error). After all evolution is all about trial and error. Over 99 percent of all species are extinct. That reeks of bad design.

  10. brother says:

    why the god is omnipotent?
    if an independent being doesn’t exists, then every being are dependent,but dependent beings need others to exist and doesn’t exist independently,so an independent being must exist, and an independent being must be omnipotent, because if an independent being is not omnipotent then needs others and can not be independent

  11. Pingback: Transhumanism and Immortality – 21st Century Snake Oil | Musings on the Nature of Reality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: